Cross-border (re)branding: Lessons from a Portuguese lip balm TM ruling

When a Brazilian company launched its popular lip balm 'Carmed' in Portugal, it arrived under the new name 'Flavy' following a successful trademark opposition by the owner of revival brand 'Carmex'. Paula Vener of Inventa examines the decision and the vital lessons it holds.

When Brazilian pharmaceutical company Cimed & Co officially launched its lip balm line in Portugal on October 6, 2026, Portuguese consumers who had followed the product on social media for years found it on the shelves under an unfamiliar name.

Carmed, one of Brazil’s most talked-about beauty products, arrived as Flavy. Behind the new name lies a trademark dispute decided by the Portuguese Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) 18 months earlier, which shows how the earlier rights of the well-known trademark CARMEX can shape the market entry of even the most popular newcomer.

A Brazilian social media phenomenon

Carmed was launched in 2015, but only became a sales phenomenon in 2023, when an edition developed with confectionery trademark Fini raised monthly sales from around 25,000 to 2 million units.

The line now sells about 4 million units a month in Brazil, with more than 50 versions, and with many partnerships with other trademarks such as Coca-Cola, Oakberry and Burger King.

From Brazilian feeds to Portuguese shoppers

The language and cultural ties between Brazil and Portugal mean that content travels easily between the two markets. Carmed’s growth was built largely on organic content, influencer relationships and trademark collaborations rather than paid media, and that content reached Portuguese audiences.

According to Cimed vice-president Karla Felmanas, Portuguese users were among those who most often asked for the product on social media. The Brazilian community in Portugal has also grown sharply: legally resident Brazilians rose from 278,109 in 2021 to 574,195 in 2025, according to Statistics Portugal figures.

Demand, however, was only half of the equation. To sell in Portugal, Cimed needed a name it could lawfully use there.

The obstacle: the earlier, well-known trademark, Carmex

Carmex, the lip balm created by Alfred Woelbing in 1937 and owned by Carma Laboratories,, holds a portfolio of EU trademarks that are fully enforceable in Portugal, including:

• The EUTM no. 000347112: CARMEX, filed on August 30, 1996, in classes 3 and 5, for salve-like substances for lip care and lipsticks for cosmetic and medical purposes;
• The EUTM no. 008248941: CARMEX, filed on April 27, 2007, in class 3, for Lip balm, lotion, and cream;
• The EUTM no. 011713419: (figure 1) , filed on April, 4, 2013, in class 3 and 5, for Lip balm, lip treatment, lip gloss, lipstick, Medicated lip balm, ointment, salve.

Figure 1: EUTM no. 011713419

Cimed filed the Portuguese national applications no. 732966—CARMED and 732967—(figure 2) for “cosmetics” in class 3. Carma Laboratories opposed both, arguing that all the cumulative requirements of the legal concept of trademark imitation were met and also invoked the reputation of its Carmex trademarks. It further argued that granting the applications could give rise to unfair competition, regardless of the applicant’s intent.

Figure 2: Portuguese national application 732967

Cimed did not respond, and on March 3, 2025 INPI upheld the oppositions and refused both applications. INPI first confirmed the priority of the Carmex trademarks and the similarity between the goods at issue, which share their nature, distribution channels and end consumers.

On similarity of the signs, INPI held that “Carmex” and “Carmed” differ only minimally, creating a strong visual and phonetic similarity that consumers would hardly be able to tell apart. In INPI’s view, this could lead them to believe, wrongly, that the products share the same commercial origin or that the two companies are linked.

On reputation, the examiner accepted that the Carmex trademarks enjoy a high degree of recognition in the market. Registration of the Carmed signs could therefore take unfair advantage of that reputation and harm their distinctiveness (Article 234 of the Industrial Property Code).

Finally, INPI found that unfair competition would be possible regardless of the applicant’s intent (Article 232(1)(h)). It upheld the oppositions and refused both applications.

Notably, the figurative application fared no better than the word mark as the distinctive lips device did not offset the near-identity of the verbal elements, which consumers use to refer to and order the product.

Flavy: a clean slate for Portugal, at least

Cimed’s official entry into Portugal with lip balm took place under a new trademark—Flavy, protected as EUTM no. 019302526.

According to an interview given by Cimed vice-president Felmanas, to DN Brasil, the formula is identical to Carmed’s. Although the trademark is different from the one marketed in Brazil, more than 2,000 units were sold online in the first 24 hours, according to Pedro Paiva of WBrands, Cimed’s local partner.

Cimed has presented the rebrand as a commercial choice. The name is said to derive from “flavour”, and Felmanas has explained that the company wanted “a single brand” to take abroad. She has also admitted that “the first major challenge was letting go of the Carmed name”. Therefore, the company has not publicly linked the change to the INPI decisions.

Carmed is far from an isolated case. There are many examples of trademarks that, when expanding internationally, had to abandon the name originally used in their home market in certain territories and adopt a different strategy. Well-known examples include:

• Unilever’s Heartbrand ice creams, sold under names such as Olá, Kibon, Frigo and Algida, depending on the country;
• Veja trainers, sold as Vert in Brazil;
• Axe deodorants, sold as Lynx in markets such as the UK and Ireland.

These examples show that the registration and use of a trademark must be planned with the territorial scope of the business in mind. This is why trademark clearance searches are essential before any international launch. In some cases, as with Flavy, creating a new trademark may be the safest route to market.

Branding plays an important role here. Although the trademark itself is different, Flavy retains, to a large extent, the same visual identity as Carmed, which creates continuity between the two products in the eyes of consumers.

Portuguese consumers appear to have transferred their interest in Carmed to Flavy almost immediately. This response can be attributed both to Cimed’s marketing efforts and to the largely unchanged visual identity.

Paula Vener is an attorney at law at Inventa, and can be contacted at pvener@inventa.com